Haaland

[Bris Vegas]

14 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

By complete football, you must surely mean completely break football.

Absolutely disgusting what Man City have done to the English game over the past 15 years.

Took an awful precedent set by Abramovich's Chelsea, outstripped and smashed even that over its head to become what they are today, raising the prices across football for everyone else, widening the wealth gap and helping to create the very trap we fell into which almost saw us go out of business chasing the PL dream.

I don’t know if you refer to ticket prices or something, but how have Man City raised the prices for everyone else?

They don’t hold any records for spend.

Here are the records (most expensive)

GK - 1) Azpilicueta 2) Alisson

Fullback - 1) Lucas Hernandez 2) Cucurella

CBs - 1) Van Dijk 2) Harry Maguire

CMs - 1) Pogba 2) Frenkie de Jong

Wide forwards - 1) Neymar 2) Dembele

AM - 1) Coutinho 2) Joao Felix

ST - 1) Mbappe 2) Ronaldo 3) Lukaku

As you can see, Man City haven’t raised the bar in terms of transfer fees in any position as they don’t hold the record for any buy.

They didn’t even have the largest wage bill last season. Man Utd did.

The only player City have probably signed which was out of reach for most others was Grealish. It was a poor buy IMO.

But you can’t point the finger at City for others. Every time they have signed a player, another team has spent more on a different player.

 

 

[richinspain]

54 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I can’t see how you can criticize City for what they have done. They haven’t done anything which any other ‘big’ team in the league can’t do.

They haven’t spent any more than Man Utd for instance. The difference is City just have an amazing manager and an amazing recruitment team.

Those complaining about City and Chelsea spending money. If they hadn’t, the PL would have just become like the Bundesliga with Man Utd winning every year as Arsenal faded away.

As for Haaland himself. He is amazing. City’s first XI may be stronger. But I think City’s squad is weaker allowing Jesus, Sterling and Zinchenko to leave.

I still think Liverpool will win the league this season. 

I'm not criticising any club for doing everything within their means to try to become the best. Indeed, City and Liverpool (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) can actually afford to do what they're doing. It's the other clubs that are trying to keep up without the resources that are creating the problem. We very nearly paid the price. A big (probably even bigger than Derby (yes they do exist)) club will eventually go under. Those that really are to blame are the rule makers. However, if the rule makers are the clubs themselves then there is no control. 
Would I be happy being a supporter of one of the middling Prem clubs, only hoping for a good cup run every now and then? Ultimately, yes. We'd be competing against the best clubs every other week. We'd win some and we'd lose some, but the football would be of a greater level.

As I said, football is broken. I still would like to see us eating at the top table though, and being able to say "poor X supporters, their club has died" rather than being that club.

[rsmini]

I read somewhere recently that Man City are the Harlem Globetrotters of football, all they have to do is turn it on and they can destroy anybody 

[Bris Vegas]

42 minutes ago, richinspain said:

I'm not criticising any club for doing everything within their means to try to become the best. Indeed, City and Liverpool (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) can actually afford to do what they're doing. It's the other clubs that are trying to keep up without the resources that are creating the problem. We very nearly paid the price. A big (probably even bigger than Derby (yes they do exist)) club will eventually go under. Those that really are to blame are the rule makers. However, if the rule makers are the clubs themselves then there is no control. 
Would I be happy being a supporter of one of the middling Prem clubs, only hoping for a good cup run every now and then? Ultimately, yes. We'd be competing against the best clubs every other week. We'd win some and we'd lose some, but the football would be of a greater level.

As I said, football is broken. I still would like to see us eating at the top table though, and being able to say "poor X supporters, their club has died" rather than being that club.

FFP has ruined football for me. It has created a ceiling for each club, and all that means is the bigger clubs have higher ceilings.

I’m hoping Newcastle upset the apple cart and break in.

Southampton fans must be bored stiff up there. What are their aspirations now? Just stay in the league every year.

They have a huge advantage over clubs coming up, but they aren’t going to finish top six anymore. Leicester, Wolves, Leeds, Villa and Palace will all slide into that group.

The only teams I see that will go under is those who gamble to get promoted and fail.

Forest I think are taking huge gamble. They’re spending pretty much their entire PL budget in one window. They will go down. But pressure will be on them to bounce back immediately.

[Malagaram]

On 08/08/2022 at 00:26, LERam said:

Just watching back the highlights 

He's going to demolish that league if he stays fit,  such a complete player and athlete. To be that bug and strong, but then accelerate over 5 yards, its terrifying how good he looks.

Imagine him with us in league one

Whats the point,its never going to happen.

[Turk Thrust]

Went to the West Ham match on Sunday. Haarland was an absolute beast. Fantastic player

[Rev]

27 minutes ago, Turk Thrust said:

Went to the West Ham match on Sunday. Haarland was an absolute beast. Fantastic player

Did he look massively bigger than anyone else on the pitch in person? 

I kept thinking they must be using some camera trickery, he looked enormous. 

[roboto]

3 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Also on Haaland, Manchester City have taken an almighty gamble. They've offloaded a number of their strikers and put all their hopes on a bloke whose injury track record is hardly promising. It's great if he stays fit, but if he gets injured they've not got Jesus or Sterling who were really good backups. 

They also brought in Julian Alvarez who would be first choice at pretty much any other top flight club in Europe.

I went to Arsenal v Sevilla the week before the PL season and Jesus looks great with that Arsenal team (scored a hat-trick in the first half), but when they tried to play him out wide for periods of the second half he disappeared from the game and Martinelli doesn't quite click properly as the number 9 when they switch around at the moment.

Sterling was good at City, but they've unloaded players in positions that Pep feels they've got good cover in. Jesus replaced by Haaland and Alvarez. Sterling will not be missed if two/three of Foden, Grealish, Bernardo, KDB, Mahrez etc. link up well with whoever is playing up front. Zinchenko could be the biggest miss, Cancelo is one of the best full backs in the league, but after that it's Walker out of position or Ake (I think) to cover.

[Mucker1884]

On 08/08/2022 at 16:41, TigerTedd said:

I feel like Pep has been trying to ‘complete’ football for a long time. Literally build a team that will win every single game in a season. Just imagine if a team did that, would it completely break football? I think pep is probably as close as he’s ever going to get now. Haaland is an absolutely goal scoring work of art. Like a genetically engineered super striker. He will smash countless records before he’s done. Put that into the Man City team that already won the league last season, that were already amongst a handful of teams that are probably the best we’ve ever seen, and they’ve just gone up another gear. 

in a way I’m interested to see them absolutely murder every team put before them. In another way, I think it’ll be incredibly boring and another nail in the coffin of football. 

 

On 08/08/2022 at 17:33, bimmerman said:

Isn't that what arsenal did in their invincible era? 

Unbeaten in the league... but failed to win 12 of them.

Not sure if @TigerTedd was referring to "ALL" games in the literal sense, so just in case...

Arsenal also:
Lost (on penalties) to Man U in the charity shield.
Lost 0-3 at home to Inter, 2-1 at Dynamo Kiev, and 1-2 at home to Chelsea, all in CL.
Lost both legs of the League Cup semi v 'Boro.
Lost FA Cup semi v Man U.

 

I recall thinking the term "Invincible" was a tad OTT, at the time, and certainly the wrong word for the media to use, given its meaning.
Looking back at those results, my opinion hasn't changed!  ?
 

[May Contain Nuts]

18 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

I don’t know if you refer to ticket prices or something, but how have Man City raised the prices for everyone else?

They don’t hold any records for spend.

Here are the records (most expensive)

GK - 1) Azpilicueta 2) Alisson

Fullback - 1) Lucas Hernandez 2) Cucurella

CBs - 1) Van Dijk 2) Harry Maguire

CMs - 1) Pogba 2) Frenkie de Jong

Wide forwards - 1) Neymar 2) Dembele

AM - 1) Coutinho 2) Joao Felix

ST - 1) Mbappe 2) Ronaldo 3) Lukaku

As you can see, Man City haven’t raised the bar in terms of transfer fees in any position as they don’t hold the record for any buy.

They didn’t even have the largest wage bill last season. Man Utd did.

The only player City have probably signed which was out of reach for most others was Grealish. It was a poor buy IMO.

But you can’t point the finger at City for others. Every time they have signed a player, another team has spent more on a different player.

 

They've got the highest net spend of any club in the entire world since 2003. That even includes a few seasons before Sheikh Mansour rocked up (albeit they still had a wealthy Thai bloke). The first thing the new owner did was break the British transfer record to sign Robinho.

You're focusing on individual values after they'd bought their artificial place at the top of the tree which they did by outstripping everyone else, cumulatively.

I'm not sure I agree that telling me just how much more money other clubs have spent on certain individual players since then  disproves the idea that they've raised the prices across the board. Everyone's just trying to compete with Man City, in many cases poorly.

[LERam]

On 08/08/2022 at 16:41, FlyBritishMidland said:

Cracking signing for them.  You can see why they could Jesus go.

Although it does sum up how mad football is.  During the commentary they referred to the £51M fee being a bargain and I think Gary Neville called it mates rates.  In PL terms it is a bargain, but 3 months ago we couldn’t get anyone to pay that for the entire club, including the stadium!!

They also quote that figure for effect, but fail to mention agent fees etc that took it closer to 100m

[LERam]

21 hours ago, Malagaram said:

Whats the point,its never going to happen.

Yes, let's not use any imagination anymore ??

Although you probably would have said the same about Rooney joining Derby

[Bris Vegas]

3 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

 

They've got the highest net spend of any club in the entire world since 2003. That even includes a few seasons before Sheikh Mansour rocked up (albeit they still had a wealthy Thai bloke). The first thing the new owner did was break the British transfer record to sign Robinho.

You're focusing on individual values after they'd bought their artificial place at the top of the tree which they did by outstripping everyone else, cumulatively.

I'm not sure I agree that telling me just how much more money other clubs have spent on certain individual players since then  disproves the idea that they've raised the prices across the board. Everyone's just trying to compete with Man City, in many cases poorly.

I still don’t see your point though. Blackburn had the record transfer, then Newcastle I believe, then Man Utd on several players, then Chelsea, then City, then Liverpool etc.

Which top team hasn’t spent money?

City may have the highest net spend right now, but they have the most valuable squad in Europe.

They could sell Haaland, KDB, Bernardo Silva, Dias and Foden tomorrow for a combined £400m and get their money back.

City’s initial outlay was huge. But a lot of that went on the infrastructure and basically buying a whole new team as they went from a midtable squad to a squad fighting for the title within a few years. They simply had to spend.

You say it’s artificial. But what is the alternative? If any club like Villa, Newcastle or West Ham want to compete with the best, they have to spend money. They can’t do it any other way.

Everyone is trying to compete with City on the pitch because they are the best. That’s down to the manager and recruitment.

United have spent just as much but are crap.

[europia]

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing impressive or remotely interesting about a club with billionaire owners winning football matches. Employ the best manager - buy the best players in the world - win lots of trophies. All very predictable really....

[MickD]

On 08/08/2022 at 09:33, bimmerman said:

Isn't that what arsenal did in their invincible era? 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by MickD

[TigerTedd]

On 10/08/2022 at 21:21, europia said:

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing impressive or remotely interesting about a club with billionaire owners winning football matches. Employ the best manager - buy the best players in the world - win lots of trophies. All very predictable really....

But isn’t that the point of any sport? To gather the most elite group of players you can and win everything. You don’t purposefully recruit crap players with the intention of losing every game. 

The problem is, if you actually manage to achieve that goal, it does get very boring and predictable. The real spectacle of sport is the unpredictability, the struggle to get there. If we ever got to the premier league, life would get a lot more boring, as we just try not to lose every week, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop trying.

the thing is that ultimate success is something that everyone strives for, but it isn’t actually possible, and it keeps that unpredictability in the game. Unless you effectively use an unlimited cash cheat code and buy the Harlem globetrotters, and no one likes that kid at school, cos it takes all the fun out of the game. 

[europia]

On 13/08/2022 at 13:25, TigerTedd said:

But isn’t that the point of any sport? To gather the most elite group of players you can and win everything. You don’t purposefully recruit crap players with the intention of losing every game. 

The problem is, if you actually manage to achieve that goal, it does get very boring and predictable. The real spectacle of sport is the unpredictability, the struggle to get there. If we ever got to the premier league, life would get a lot more boring, as we just try not to lose every week, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop trying.

the thing is that ultimate success is something that everyone strives for, but it isn’t actually possible, and it keeps that unpredictability in the game. Unless you effectively use an unlimited cash cheat code and buy the Harlem globetrotters, and no one likes that kid at school, cos it takes all the fun out of the game. 

Everyone is entitled to their point of view. In my opinion the obscene amounts of money that the likes of Manchester City and Newcastle have at their disposal is not good for the game. Generally the practice of 'sports washing' is quite deplorable. 

[TigerTedd]

22 minutes ago, europia said:

Everyone is entitled to their point of view. In my opinion the obscene amounts of money that the likes of Manchester City and Newcastle have at their disposal is not good for the game. Generally the practice of 'sports washing' is quite deplorable. 

If course it is. It’s all wrong, and it’s destroying / destroyed football. I’m just saying if you had access to that sort of money, then the aim of the game is to assemble the best team possible.

really there should be something in place that says that every team has access to the same amount of money, then it’s a lot fairer and down to each teams wiliness and recruitment as to how good a team they could assemble.

I’ve come up with my perfect model. It’ll never happen, but I’ll keep banging on about it. Each club is reestablished as a charity. Each club gets an equal, fixed amount from the tv revenue, to strengthen their squad, based on price caps, salary caps, and some sort of quota system.

Any extra money made from merchandising and ticket sales is mandatorily reinvested in either the community or the academy.

prize money, for finishing higher in the league, is invested in the community. Your team wins the league, ‘congratulations the pot holes in your street will now be fixed’. Much better than, ‘congratulations the glazers have got a bit richer’. 

it needs some work, but that’s the general gist of it. 

[richinspain]

On 14/08/2022 at 22:07, TigerTedd said:

If course it is. It’s all wrong, and it’s destroying / destroyed football. I’m just saying if you had access to that sort of money, then the aim of the game is to assemble the best team possible.

really there should be something in place that says that every team has access to the same amount of money, then it’s a lot fairer and down to each teams wiliness and recruitment as to how good a team they could assemble.

I’ve come up with my perfect model. It’ll never happen, but I’ll keep banging on about it. Each club is reestablished as a charity. Each club gets an equal, fixed amount from the tv revenue, to strengthen their squad, based on price caps, salary caps, and some sort of quota system.

Any extra money made from merchandising and ticket sales is mandatorily reinvested in either the community or the academy.

prize money, for finishing higher in the league, is invested in the community. Your team wins the league, ‘congratulations the pot holes in your street will now be fixed’. Much better than, ‘congratulations the glazers have got a bit richer’. 

it needs some work, but that’s the general gist of it. 

[Bris Vegas]

On 14/08/2022 at 13:38, europia said:

Everyone is entitled to their point of view. In my opinion the obscene amounts of money that the likes of Manchester City and Newcastle have at their disposal is not good for the game. Generally the practice of 'sports washing' is quite deplorable. 

The amount of money at their disposal means nothing with FFP involved. It was well documented that Everton’s owner is wealthier than every other owner in the PL bar City’s. But there were limits to his spending, and what he did spend, he spent on garbage.

Man Utd have bigger spending power than City. The difference between the two is City are smart with their spending. 

As for Newcastle, they can only spend to the maximum losses FFP allows. Given the size of the club, it’s likely their spending power will still lag behind Arsenal and Spurs until they are an established Champions League side.